So why are third-millennium Americans leaving religion? The reason isn’t clear, but I would argue that the proper response is counter-intuitive: become more explicitly “religious,” not less. Make Christianity a clear alternative to the culture, not just another option among many.
When I logged into Twitter on Easter Monday morning, I was pleasantly surprised. As anyone who has spent time on Twitter knows, timelines related to Catholicism or politics (as mine is) tend to lean strongly negative. Yet on Easter Monday morning, I was flooded with tweets celebrating new members of the Catholic Church. It was a beautiful reminder that God’s grace is always working in the world.
But (you knew there had to be a “but,” didn’t you?) this little oasis of good news can’t mask the fact that overall trends do not look good for the Catholic Church, particularly in America. And as I’ve written before, the trends are particularly bleak since the year 2000, with numbers cratering this century. A new Gallup poll shows that this recent downturn isn’t confined to Catholics, though.
Gallup has been measuring church membership in this country since the 1930’s, and from 1937 until 2000, the percentage of Americans who claim membership in a church (or synagogue or mosque) remained relatively stable around 70%. Yet starting in 2000 (there’s that year again), the percentage has fallen off a cliff, and for the first time ever, is now below 50%. There are now more Americans who deny church membership than claim it. We are officially a pagan nation.
The Catholic demographic drop is of course related to the overall religious drop—it both influences it and is influenced by it. If Catholics were not leaving the Church in droves, it’s unlikely that the total membership percentage would be under 50% right now. Yet it’s also likely that many of the cultural reasons people of all denominations and religions are headed for the exit are shared by Catholics who leave the Church.
Catholics have long speculated as to the reasons behind our own demographic crash. Most commonly put forward is the massive and systemic sexual abuse scandal that went public in 2002. And that scandal surely had an impact. Yet Catholic priests abusing children can’t necessarily explain why a Pentecostal would stop attending his church.
The impact of Vatican II is also suggested as a cause of the Catholic decline. By the year 2000, a full generation had passed since the reforms inspired by Vatican II went into effect. Perhaps the large drop-off is simply those reforms coming to their unfortunate fruition.
It’s beyond debate that at the very least Vatican II didn’t increase the number of Catholics in the country. And in fact, while Vatican II might not be the primary cause in the decline in membership, it probably accelerated it. Yet Vatican II was a particularly Catholic event, and so it’s hard to see how it would have much impact on church membership among non-Catholics, particularly Jews and Muslims, who are also experiencing declines.
So why are third-millennium Americans leaving religion? The honest answer is that I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. One cause of this difficulty is that often the reasons people give for why they left don’t match their actual reasons. In my own experience, I’ve found that people will give theological or philosophical reasons for leaving (“I couldn’t be part of a church that doesn’t ordain women” or “I no longer believe in the papacy”), but when pressed, they will admit their reasons were more personal (“I didn’t want to feel guilty for living with my boyfriend” or “I just stopped being interested”). Knowing exactly why people are leaving religion will likely never be determined on a macro level.
It’s likely a combination of factors, a perfect storm of anti-religious sentiment coming together to empty American churches, synagogues, and mosques. The impact of the Catholic abuse crisis may very well have seeped into other religious communities, as the constant barrage of bad news about religious leaders likely degraded the overall view of organized religion in the eyes of many. Further, the 9/11 attacks, committed by religious Muslims, could have also corrupted Americans’ views of all religions.
Another phenomenon of the early 2000’s, bolstered by the bad news coming out of organized religions, was the rise of the New Atheism. While this movement isn’t in the news as much anymore, it was all the rage twenty years ago, with notable figures arguing against all religion. It became fashionable to mock believers, and that surely had an impact.
A factor not often mentioned, but which could be significant is the rise of the Internet during this time period, particularly the rise of social media. Religion is one the strongest community-builders in existence, and many people are members of a local church mostly for the community aspects. Yet now a person can easily be part of a myriad of communities around the world with a few clicks. That sense of belonging that used to require a physical gathering can now be found in a Facebook group or a Reddit community.
Further, I mentioned before that the generation raised completely after Vatican II left the Church in droves. But of course Vatican II was a product of the 1960’s, when most of the western world was freeing itself from the supposed shackles of traditional religion. So even outside of Catholicism, many of the children who grew up post-1970 and were coming of age by 2000 could have been leaving not a religion ardently passed on to them by devout parents, but a faith only loosely followed in their homes.
And another possible factor: the rise in political religious fervor. This might be a replacement for a loss of religion, or a cause, but it’s certainly the case that many people now treat politics as their new religion. Consider the woke Leftist: his beliefs are more strident than the most extreme Muslim. And it’s not just the Left: on the Right, many spoke of Donald Trump in religious terms, giving his presidency salvific overtones.
Regardless of the reason, the question remains: what should Catholics do in response to this tremendous drop-off in interest in organized religions? The easy, lazy answer is to make the Catholic Church less religious-looking. Go with the flow, be more like the culture. But that’s always a losing proposition, as any honest Episcopalian can tell you.
I would argue that the proper response is counter-intuitive: become more explicitly “religious,” not less. Make Catholicism a clear alternative to the culture, not just another option among many. When religions try to ape the culture, they always lose, because the culture can always do it better. But the culture can’t do religion better. In fact, no one can do religion better than the one true religion, Catholicism. So instead of trying to be “relevant” and culturally hip, go the other direction. Zig when everyone else is zagging.
Embrace the fullness of the Catholic religious patrimony—devotions, high liturgy, smells and bells, sophisticated theology, and rigorous morality that stand out as distinctly Catholic. Yes, many moderns will not be attracted to it, but they aren’t attracted to a watered-down Catholicism, either. And I’ll wager that a significant portion of the populace is looking for something to fill the void that our non-religious culture can’t fill. A robust religion that is unapologetically counter-cultural might fit that bill. And as a side benefit, the Church can be who she is called to be instead of pretending that she’s something else, as she’s been doing for decades now.
It’s unlikely that we can halt the cultural degradation that’s currently happening in our now pagan nation. But we as Catholics can at least offer a clear life raft to those sinking into anti-religious despair. That won’t happen unless the Church offers a clear and distinct alternative to the world, one that unapologetically embraces the fullness of her religious heritage.
Republished with gracious permission from Crisis Magazine (April 2021).
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The featured image is courtesy of Pixabay.
I think the mention of Vatican II (which I clearly remember as a kid) is of particular note. My feeling is always been that the major issue (and I’m sure there are others) that Vatican II set up was performing the mass in English instead of Latin which I think was a huge, monumental error. I think that Vatican II (and Pope John the 23rd) we’re trying to make it easier for people to understand the meaning of words we were saying, but unfortunately they missed the point; I don’t think it matters so much that we understand what the words are saying so long as we save them correctly. Certain frequencies and specific tonal qualities said ‘en masse’, create a very real, powerful energy, and a sense of unity that is unequaled when they are merely spoken English instead of the Latin.
Oddly enough, as a kid I understood this -the Latin High Mass with the incense and the whole shebang had an undeniably tangible & very real sense of “magic” about it, at least to a kid. I could FEEL the power- and I realized that they had made a huge mistake! Essentially the church lost its power -it’s real power- when it stopped Latin Masses.
I don’t know if returning to Latin Masses will help but I think it’s something they should try..
I believe we were taught that to be in the Catholic Church we are to go to church and pray because our lives were hard and to get onto heaven will be so much better than our miserable lives.
These days our lives are the best lives compared to the last 2000 years. Why go to church and pray to have a better life in heaven.? Actually we are grateful our lives are actually really great now.
Outstanding! I am not a Catholic, but I agree 100 percent with your thesis – Our Churches need to be exactly what we are and stand for what is biblically right. Thank you for having the knowledge and courage to speak the truth before it is too late.
“Yes, many moderns will not be attracted to it, but they aren’t attracted to a watered-down Catholicism, either.”
Exactly. Most of the people objecting to it being old-fashioned don’t really want to be part of any organized religion.
One thing that seems to be affecting Catholicism, specifically, is we receive relatively few converts. The retention rate of Catholicism, those raised in it staying in it, I think was similar to Evangelicals and better than most mainline Protestants. But converts, in the US at least, are a comparatively low percent of believers. The scandals might be part of the lack of conversions, though I wonder if another issue is Catholicism doesn’t fit American politics (Popes historically criticized both capitalism and socialism, religious coercion and unlimited religious freedom, etc) and our politics seems to be everywhere.
Hello, thanks for this insightful and thoughtful article. One comment: you seem to use the term “pagan” as a replacement for “secular”.
Catholicism has deep roots in European pagan religion, an element of Catholicism that makes it even more sacred, beautiful, ancient than Christianity alone.
Another, better word than pagan is heathen. A pagan is one who believes in a religion that is not mainline. A heathen, on the other hand, is one who doesn’t follow any religion, mainline or otherwise. C. S. Lewis remarked that he could wish people would become pagans rather than heathens because pagans at least acknowledged that there was a divinity to which one was obliged offer sacrifice and whose precepts one was willing to obey. Our modern people have deserted any organized religion for their own homemade “spirituality.” They often display statues of the Buddha, for example, but don’t actually practice Buddhism. People want to be thought spiritual without any of the responsibilities that come with following any religion.
The failing of the “domestic church” is the single most significant cause of most of our problems. Parents are called to teach their children. The weakness of families is the fundamental problem. I think JPII said, “…as goes the family, so goes the nation.” Appreciate the article
I remember well sitting in our local church, pre-Vatican II, and thinking that at this moment on a Sunday morning, Catholics all around the world were participating in this beautiful ritual in this ancient, slightly mysterious, powerful Latin, from the Philippines to Timbuktu. A tragic mistake to have jettisoned the Latin for English.
The most poignant essay on the direction of Catholicism I have ever read. It gives me hope! It also tells me where we have erred since Vatican II. It’s honest, in that it tells the hidden truth about what people say when asked why they left the Church and the real personal, hidden reason why they left the Church.
This is a complex topic. The author states: “But of course Vatican II was a product of the 1960’s, when most of the western world was freeing itself from the supposed shackles of traditional religion.” The secularization of the western world was a gradual process; it did not happen all at once in a particular year or decade. Vatican II was a product of the mid-20th century, when religion was still quite healthy, widely discussed and followed, and a part of mainstream culture. Remember that the council was announced in 1959 and held from 1962 to 1965. That is well before the counter-culture movements that we associate with the “the Sixties,” which happened later in the decade.
The author is recommending that we follow the example of Christ Jesus and the early church. What they preached and practiced was at odds with the pagan culture that worshipped domination, wealth, status, and pleasure. They died rather than worship Caesar. They made slaves, female slaves, deacons, which was impossible for Jewish culture to tolerate. One could go on interminably. In all times and in all places Christ and his church are enemies of the false gods that are worshipped in all cultures.
Mr. Sammons,
Having “walked” with our Lord Jesus for more than 50 years, I am evermore assured that Christianity is a relationship above all else. Everyone is religious in some way. Yet only when we know the Author of the Book do we find true life. Christian faith is a lifestyle, not so much a religion. “ While we were sinners Christ died for us.” “We love because He first loved us.” This is the gospel St Martin of Wittenberg discovered while being a very religious (yet lost) monk.
Amen, Steve!
I agree with you Mr. Sammons that we need more robust teachings in our church and fewer watered-down sermons.
Also some people who do not know our religion (Roman Catholic), believe that we are hateful towards the homosexual movements, and all sorts of other perversions out there. People want to be their own Gods. I’ve heard people say, our Priest wouldn’t marry us so we just went to another church.
In, Gott und die Vernunft – Aufruf zum Dialog der Kulturen, Benedict XVI quoted Saint Augustine who quoted the pagan Terents. There used to be three theologies, theologia mythica, theologia civilis, and theologia naturalis. Confer, in my humble opinion, mythos, ethos, and logos, respectively, faith, morals, and reason. Then he says, Christendom is theologia naturalis. But in my humble opinion, it is also theologia mythica and theologia civilis, but still Saint John says, logos, which is divine reason. Consider, faith, hopes, and charity, respectively, the true, the good, and the beautiful. On the other hand, the Handbook of Theology (Summa Theologiae) seems to be organized in three parts (in five volumes), according to reason, morals, and faith. If another way to see this is, God, virtue, and immortality, which the pagan Cicero spoke about, God corresponds to reason/logos, virtue corresponds to morals/ethos, and immortality corresponds to faith/mythos. The latter is why our Lord must speak in parables, and why our holy mother Church must speak in dogmas, especially Marian dogmas. Karl Rahner said, what we belive about Mary, we hope for ourselves. But Mary is also example in reason and morals, together with Jesus. Perhaps new paganism is God’s plan to have us rediscover all three theologies, because protestants had stressed theologia mythica, and humanists had stressed theologia civilis, and atheists had greatly misunderstood theologia naturalis. Together, protestants, humanists, and atheists are, of course, the city of the world, while protestants are also the city of God. It is no wonder at all, if catholics can be confused. But the true, the good, and the beautiful, respectively, faith, hopes, and charity, are not only about going to heaven, but especially so about staying in heaven, as our first parents were supposed to, and as catholics do, when our new first parents are Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary, or perhaps simply God and the Church. As regards, Latin, I think it must be rediscovered, because it is the great, all human language, and together with Hebrew and Greek is biblical. Why do they celebrate masses in English all over the world, I am sorry, but if mass were in Latin, no government would need to fear for western imperialism. English can well be used for bible readings and sermons and cathechesis, but nobody needs to be afraid of wonderful Latin. As regards, the Second Vatican Council, I think it is here to stay, but abuses must be overcome. These are mainly due to the alleged death of God by science, the cold war, and the sexual revolution, which have all three of them set the popular majority in fear for their own humanity. In my humble opinion, the council (and the efforts by Benedict XVI) need a human lifespan to bear rich fruits, because people live in the age of transition from renaissance twilight to third millenium dawn. We can step into hopes, as John Paul II wrote another book about, but our memory and identity, yet another book, are all complicated, and I think, if people hesitate, it is only natural and reasonable with transitionary paganism, while we seek, God, virtue, and immortality. We do live in interesting times. Wish that people would grab said Handbook of Theology to seek God, virtue, and immortality.
As regards, the Second Vatican Council, this took place in the times, when God was said by philosophers to be dead, and when the world was at cold war as well as in sexual revolution. The assembled bishops perhaps sensed that they needed to empower the Christian laity. Two theology professors then became very famous, Joseph Ratzinger and Hans Küng, for their appeals to the laity, but from opposite positions. Especially in Germany, still divided between catholic south, protestant west, and atheist east, the theological debates are still not settled. Probably, the Christian minorities subscribe to the Ratzinger interpretation, while the popular majorities subscribe to the Küng interpretation. But never have lay people been better engaged in theological debates than with the council. There is no contrafactual history writing, and it seems that minority Christians have harvested good fruits from the council, while the popular majorities have in a sense become let down, because they only see an apostate Church whom they cannot trust to give them faith and morals, since theology is so complicated. What united the Christian minority and the popular majorities was perhaps liturgy in Latin. It will take a long walk with liturgy in English to reach the souls of the irreligious popular majorities who never grasped theological debates anyway.
The enlightenment (loaded and arrogant term) has so denigrated the supernatural that what is left of religion is about as inspiring as a rotary club.
Teach the Word of God, without compromise; no mumbling, aw shucks, I’m just a regular guy, just like you, ( big smile here ) you know, I once knew a fella who…
No, actually, I look to you, Pastor, as the shepherd of my soul in the stead of our Lord Jesus, not as my Sunday morning laugh provoker ( I’m funnier than you when I’m under anesthesia, frankly ), or as my easy to take buddy.
Tell me what God wants me to know. Administer the Sacraments. Be a man of God, not a Rotarian.
Mr Udmark makes many interesting points, but I must say that for Christians the Faith precedes “theology”, as do Hope and Love. The depths of each of these is experiential, existential. We are creatures of Faith, Hope and Love in Eternity. These are rooted in the heart and the meeting of hearts, God’s and man’s. They are not rooted in Reason, or ratio. God is beyond Reason as is our own being. We do not act in calculated terms of survival. We live trans-survival, effusively. Our life is gifted and is to be gifted. We die when we become preoccupied with death. Meaning for life in God comes and we are lifted above and beyond death. Jesus conquered death, the fear of death, the fear of giving ourselves without measure. We give until we can’t give any more in the eternal process of giving. We use ourselves up in our giving when we belong to God. We are tied into the mystery of the eternal gift, the eternal sacrifice of Christ. This is the transcending message of the Church through all time and eternity. It is beyond all culture and it engulfs it and its sinful limits.
Our leadership need to be unapologetically religious. We need Bishops, Priests to do their job and lead. Be a beacon an example to the world. That this secular age will fade and God will be there before, during and after this fad.